CONTENTS

1. Introduction

The standpoint adopted here is primarily that of
Therav‚da Buddhism. But most of what is said will be
applicable to most other Buddhist traditions. The Therav‚da
tradition, also called the Southern school of Buddhism, is
based on texts maintained in the Pali language which are the
oldest of the existing Canons of Buddhism and reputed to be
the closest to the teaching of the Buddha himself.

There is no place for God in the Mahayana traditions of
Buddhism as well, and indeed some of the early Indian
Mahayana philosophers have denounced god-worship in terms
which are even stronger than those expressed in the Theravada
literature. Some later Mahayana schools which flourished
outside India ascribed some degree of divinity to a
transcendent Buddha, considering living Buddhas to a be a
manifestation of this ‚dhi-buddha. But even here it cannot
be said that the Buddha was converted into a Divinity
comparable to the God of the monotheistic religions.

2. Buddhism as a Non-Theistic
Religion

Buddhism is unique amongst the religions of the world
because it does not have any place for God in its
soteriology. Indeed most Asian religions (with the possible
exception of some extremely devotional forms of Hinduism) are
essentially non-theistic, in that God does not occupy the
central place that is accorded to him in monotheistic
religious traditions. But Buddhism goes beyond most of these
other religions in that it is positively anti-theistic
because the very notion of God conflicts with some principles
which are fundamental to the Buddhist view of the world and
the role of humans in it (see section 5 below).

However Buddhism is not atheistic in the sense that modern
secularism, rationalism, humanism, etc. could be regarded to
be atheistic (although it has much in common with them).
Buddhism is not concerned primarily with refuting the notion
of God (as some atheistic writers have done). It is
principally concerned with developing a method of escape from
the worldly ills. This involves undertaking a method of
mental discipline and a code of conduct which is sufficient
to satisfy the most demanding of spiritual requirements.
Indeed only very little of the Buddha's voluminous discourses
deal directly with the question of God. He was more
interested in expounding a way to personal salvation, and to
improve the weal of mankind both in this world and in the
worlds to come. It is this task that informs most of the
discourses of the Buddha which later came to be compiled into
the various Canons of Buddhism.

The Buddha did not take an ambiguous or agnostic position
on the question of God as he is sometimes represented as
having taken by theistically inclined writers. The Buddha has
stated his position on God in clear and unequivocal terms.

3. The Notion of God

It is first of all necessary to establish what is meant by
the term "God". This term is used to designate a
Supreme Being endowed with the qualities of omnipotence and
omniscience, who is the creator of the universe with all its
contents, and the chief law-giver for humans. God is
generally considered as being concerned with the welfare of
his human creatures, and the ultimate salvation of those who
follow his dictates. God is therefore a person of some kind,
and the question whether such an entity exists or not is
fundamental to all theistic systems.

In contrast to this notion of a personal God some modern
theologians have interpreted the term "God" as
representing some kind of abstract principle of good (or
"ground of being"). This view was first developed
in the ancient Indian Upanishads where God is equated with an
abstract principle (Brahman). The ancient Indian philosophers
could entertain such a view because they also had a theory of
karma which really does away with the need for a personal
God. Buddhists too have a theory of karma, which is different
from that of the Hindus, and which even more unequivocally
dispenses with the need for a Deity. The use of the term
"God' to denote an abstract reality by monotheistic
theologians who have no theory of karma is difficult to
justify; one suspects that this is merely a device to explain
away the contradictions that arise from the notion of a
personal God. In fact the actual practice of theistic
religion proceeds as if God is a real person of some kind or
other.

Just as Buddhism rejects the notion of a Supreme God it
also rejects the notion of an abstract God-principle
operating in the universe. The notion of Brahman (in the
neuter) is not discussed at all in the Buddhist texts, and
even in India it may well be a post-Buddhist development
resulting from the attempt to reconcile the belief in God(s)
with the powerful critique of the Buddha. It is therefore the
attitude of Buddhism to the notion of a supreme personal God
animating the Universe that we must consider.

Buddhism speaks of the existence of category of beings
called devas. This term is generally translated as
"gods" (with a simple `g' and in the plural). The
term deva literally means a shining or radiant being, and
describes their physical appearance rather than their
supernatural powers (as the translation "gods"
seems to imply). To prevent confusion with the notion of a
supreme personal God we shall refer to these beings of
Buddhist cosmology as devas. Many other religions also
postulate the existence of non-human beings who are referred
to as `gods' or `angels' if they are considered to be in a
better position than humans (with respect to their material
conditions of existence). Buddhist cosmology recognises 32
planes of existence some of the higher planes being either
states of meditative abstraction or actual domains for the
devas. Generally we have direct experience of only two of
these 32 planes (those of humans and animals). Planes of
existence below these two realms are also said to exist and
are characterised by greater degrees of suffering and
discomfort. The actual physical location of these planes need
not concern us here because the dimensions of the Buddhist
universe are even greater than those envisaged by modern
astronomy and will contain enough places to accommodate all
these planes of existence.

We can easily dispose of the devas in the context of the
Buddhist attitude to God because the devas are essentially
irrelevant to the human situation. Beings are born in the
deva-worlds because of particular karmic factors they have
accumulated, and after these karmic factors are exhausted
they could revert to any of the other planes of existence
depending on their unexpended karma. The devas are not
particularly endowed with special powers to influence others,
and far from saving anyone else they themselves are not
"saved". Salvation in Buddhism comes only from full
enlightenment, which could be best accomplished from the
human plane of existence.

The Vedic and Brahmanical religion of the Buddha's day
postulated a large number of gods, many of them
personifications of natural forces. However Brahmanical
theology had advanced to the point that one of these gods was
considered to be superior to all others, and was even
considered to be the creator-god (Ishvara). This supreme god
could then be considered as the equivalent to the single God
of the monotheistic religions which emerged in the Middle
East.

Different names have been given to the supreme god in the
Brahmanical and later Hindu literature, but in Buddhist texts
the supreme god is referred to as Mah‚-Brahm‚ (or simply
Brahm‚) who was the chief of a class of gods called the
Brahm‚s. Brahm‚ of the Buddhist texts may be considered to
be the equivalent of the God of the three monotheistic
religions that was to emerge in the middle east. The first of
these was Judaism which promoted one its gods Yahweh as the
one God sometime about the 6th century BCE. Next Christianity
adopted the same god under the name of Jehovah who is
represented as the "Father" of Jesus. Finally Islam
adopted the name of Allah for their only God. To get the
Buddha's views on God we must therefore consider his views on
Brahm‚.

One popular misconception of Buddhism must be dismissed at
this point. This is view that the Buddha is some kind of God
figure. In the Theravada tradition the Buddha is regarded as
a supremely enlightened human teacher who has come to his
last birth in sams‚ra (the Buddhist cycle of existence).
Even Mahayana traditions which tend to think in terms of
transcendental Buddhas do not directly make a claim for
Buddha as God. Thus the Buddha cannot be considered as
playing a God-like role in Buddhism.

4. The Buddhist View of God

In the Buddhist texts Mah‚ Brahm‚ is represented as
claiming the following attributes for himself:

"I am Brahm‚, the Great Brahm‚, the Supreme
One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of
all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all appointing
to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all
that is and will be." (DÓgha Nik‚ya, II, 263).

The Buddha dismisses all these claims of Mah‚ Brahm‚ as
being due to his own delusions brought about by ignorance. He
argues that Mah‚-Brahm‚ is simply another deva, perhaps
with greater karmic force than the other gods, but
nonetheless a deva and therefore unenlightened and subject to
the sams‚ric process as determined by his karma. In such
suttas as the Brahmaj‚la sutta and the Agga§§a Sutta the
Buddha refutes the claims of Maha Brahm‚ and shows him to be
subject to karmic law (i.e. cosmic law). Even though
long-lived Mah‚ Brahm‚ will be eliminated in each cycle of
inevitable world dissolution and re-evolution. In the
Khevadda Sutta Mah‚ Brahm‚ is forced to admit to an
inquiring monk that he is unable to answer a question that is
posed to him, and advises the monk to consult the Buddha.
This clearly shows the Brahm‚ acknowledges the superiority
of the Buddha.

The Buddhist view is that gods may lead more comfortable
lives and be addicted to all the sense pleasures, but in
terms of wisdom might be inferior to humans. They are even
represented as coming to receive instruction from monks and
even lay persons. Later on with the Hindu revival and
proliferation of God-cults the Buddhists were increasingly
vocal against the pretensions of God and his retinue of
lesser gods. N‚garjun‚ the Indian Buddhist philosopher of
the 2nd century CE expressed a commonly shared Buddhist view
when he wrote:

The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods.

Mah‚paj‚p‚ramit‚sh&acirc;stra [Lamotte
trans. I, p.141]

In the West a number of "arguments" have been
adduced to prove or disprove the existence of God. Some of
these were anticipated by the Buddha. One of the most popular
is the "first cause" argument according to which
everything must have a cause, and God is considered the first
cause of the Universe. The Buddhist theory of causation says
that every thing must have preconditions for its existence,
and this law must also extend to "God" should such
an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims
that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of
this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God
such exemptions could be made with respect to other things
also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause.

But the argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is
what is now called the "argument from evil" which
in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from
dukkha (suffering or unsatisfactoriness). This states that
the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be
reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient
being who is also all good. The following verses from the
BhŻridatta Jataka bring this out clearly:

If the creator of
the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?

The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given
attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and
benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually
compatible with the existential fact of dukkha.

From the Buddhist standpoint the classic theistic
statement that "God created man in his (i.e God's)
image" has actually to be reversed. It is man who has
created God in his (i.e. man's) image! And as man's own image
changes so does that of his God. Thus in the present time
with the rise of feminism there is an attempt to change the
gender of God from a man to a woman (or perhaps even to a
neuter). To liberate himself mankind has to shed his
delusions, and one of these is the existence of God.

5. The God-Concept and Buddhist
Principles

Quite apart from explicit statements refuting the God-idea
there is a fundamental incompatibility between the notion of
God and basic Buddhist principles. We have already mentioned
that God cannot be reconciled with the Buddhist notion of
causality which is contained in the theory of "dependent
origination" which is one of the discoveries of the
Buddha during his enlightenment. Certainly nothing like this
theory has been propounded prior to the Buddha.

A fundamental Buddhist belief is that all phenomena
without exemption (including all animate beings) have three
essential characteristics. These are dukkha (explained
above), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (insubstantiality,
"no-soul"). The attributes of God are not
consistent with these universal marks of existence. Thus God
must be free from dukkha; he must be eternal (and hence not
subject to anicca); finally he must have a distinct
unchanging identity (and therefore lack the characteristic of
anatta).

Another concomitant of the God-idea that is fundamentally
incompatible with Buddhism is the belief that God acts as the
final judge and could determine if individuals go to heaven
or hell. According to Buddhism the destination of individuals
is determined by the karmic law which cannot be interfered by
any external process. Only individuals can effect their
karmic destinies; even a Buddha cannot "pardon" or
otherwise interfere with the karmic process. In Buddhism
there is simply no place for a God even if one were to exist.

There is also no place for the notion of vicarious
salvation, or atonement for human sins by a
"suffering" God. The Buddha affirms that "by
oneself is kamma done and by oneself is kamma undone".
According to Buddhism no one (and this includes gods or God)
can save another. This is a cardinal principle of the Buddha
which cannot be reconciled with the declared attributes and
actions of God.

The Buddhist path to salvation is based on deeds
(including mental culture through "meditation") not
prayer. God appears to Buddhists to be a vain being expecting
all others to pray to him and worship him. Indeed such prayer
seems to be the most decisive factor in a person's salvation,
not necessarily any good or bad deeds by him. But as
mentioned above in Buddhism it is volitional action with
determines the karma of an individual.

There is no doubt some similarities in the moral codes of
Buddhism and some theistic religions. Things like compassion
are inculcated in all religions. But in Buddhism this does
not arise from a heavenly dictate and there is no limitation
in the exercise of these virtues as occurs in some theistic
religion.

6. The Persistence of the
God-Idea

The Buddha's refutation of the God-concept was formulated
some 2500 years ago, perhaps at the very time that the idea
of a single supreme God was mooted in India and in the Middle
East. With the rise of modern science, and the discovery of
natural causes for phenomena which were formerly ascribed to
the action of God, some philosophers have restated the basic
fallacies of the God-hypothesis using modern science and
logic (and not the Buddha's dhamma) as their point of
departure. Yet many people in the world formally subscribe to
the notion of God. What is the Buddhist explanation for this
phenomenon?

There are many causes for the persistence of the God-idea.
Some of these are induced by social and other factors. These
include the institutionalisation of theistic religion, the
use of vast economic resources to propagate it including the
mass media, and the legal right given to parents to impose
their religions on their children. There is also the
attractiveness of vicarious salvation, or salvation through
prayer or forgiveness which permits the committing of many
moral crimes for which the doer does not "pay". We
shall not consider these here. From the Buddhist point of
view the root causes are ignorance and fear, with fear itself
ultimately the product of ignorance. Atheistic materialism
has failed to dislodge the God-idea not because of any
deficiency of its arguments when compared to those put
forward by the theists, but because it too has not been able
to eliminate ignorance.

The ignorance (avijj‚) that is meant here cannot be
eliminated by formal education and the propagation of
scientific knowledge. After all some leading scientists are
themselves completely deluded by theistic suppositions. The
progress of science has resulted only in a minor diminution
in the power of theistic religion, and in any case
theologians have become adept at "reinterpreting"
dogma while the general followers continue to do what they
have always done.

The Buddha himself grasped the overpervading nature of
ignorance because of his titanic struggle to liberate
himself. He even initially displayed some reluctance to
propagate his knowledge because of the formidable nature of
the task. Nonetheless he proclaimed his knowledge out of
compassion for the world because he felt that at least a few
"with little dust in their eyes" would be able to
benefit fully from his ideas. From the Buddhist point of view
the persistence of theism, with all its evil consequences
seen in history, is a necessary consequence of the
persistence of ignorance.

While intellectual and scientific knowledge is not the
sole (or even essential) constituent of wisdom (pa§§‚) it
could in the modern world with high levels of educational
attainment be a good basis for it. But what is really
required is the cultivation of the mind (bh‚van‚,
sam‚dhi). This is usually referred to as
"meditation" even though this term is quite
inadequate to convey the full implications of what is meant.
Many modern-day "meditation teachers" do not give
instruction in Buddhist mental culture, and even some of
those who claim to do so may take a literal view of a few
classic Buddhist texts on the subject. The Buddhist path
requires a correct balance between three components: wisdom,
morality and mental culture. Progress in all these three
areas must be made simultaneously, and exclusive
concentration on any one these, especially
"meditation" of a highly stylised form, is not the
balanced path. The Buddha has asked all his disciples to go
to the Dhamma as their guide rather than to specific
teachers. The Buddha's final instruction to his followers was
to "work out your own salvation with diligence"
with the Buddha's teaching (the dhamma) as the only guide.

The path of the Buddha cannot be followed if a person is
deluded by the notion of God. This is why a correct
understanding of all the ramifications of the God-idea is
essential for anyone seeking to progress along the Buddhist
path to total liberation.